Preface to the Third Part of an Equal Check.

ZELOTES AND HONESTUS RECONCILED;

OR,

THE THIRD PART OF AN EQUAL CHECK TO

PHARISAISM AND ANTINOMIANISM: BEING

THE SECOND PART OF THE SCRIPTURE SCALES

TO WEIGH THE GOLD OF GOSPEL TRUTH, TO BALANCE A

MULTITUDE OF OPPOSITE SCRIPTURES, TO PROVE THE GOSPEL

MARRIAGE OF FREE GRACE AND FREE WILL, AND RESTORE

PRIMITIVE HARMONY TO THE GOSPEL OF THE DAY.

Si non est Dei gratito, quomodo salvat mundum? Si non est liberum arbitrium, quomod judicat mundum? — Aug.

PREFACE TO THE THIRD PART OF AN EQUAL CHECK.

The reconciler invites the contending parties to end the controversy; and in order to this he beseeches them not to involve the question in clouds of evasive cavils or personal reflections; but to come to the point, and break, if they can, either the one or the other of his Scripture Scales; and if they cannot, to admit them both, and by that means to give glory to and the truth, and be reconciled to all the Gospel, and to one another.

BEING fully persuaded that Christianity suffers greatly by the opposite mistakes of the mere Solifidians and of the mere moralists, we embrace the truths and reject the errors which are maintained by these contrary parties. For by equally admitting the doctrines of grace and the doctrines of justice; — by equally contending for faith and for morality, we adopt what is truly excellent in each system; we reconcile Zelotes and Honestus; we bear our testimony against their contentious partiality; and, to the best of our knowledge, we maintain the whole truth as it is in Jesus. If we are mistaken, we shall be thankful to those who will set us right. Plain scriptures, close arguments, and friendly expostulations are the weapons we choose. We humbly hope that the unprejudiced reader will find no other in these pages: and to engage our opponents to use such only, we present to them the following petition: —

For the sake of candour, of truth, of peace, — for the reader’s sake; and above all, for the sake of Christ, and the honour of Christianity; — whoever ye are that shall next enter the lists against us, do not wire-draw the controversy by uncharitably attacking our persons, and absurdly judging our spirits, instead of weighing our arguments and considering the scriptures which we produce. Nor pass over fifty solid reasons, and a hundred plain passages, to cavil about non-essentials, and to lay the stress of your answer upon mistakes which do not affect the strength of the cause, and which we are ready to correct as soon as they shall be pointed out.

Keep close to the question: do not divert the reader’s mind by starting from the point in hand upon the most frivolous occasions; nor raise dust to obscure what is to be cleared up. An example will illustrate my meaning: Mr. Sellon, in vindicating the Church of England from the charge of Calvinism, observes, that her catechism is quite anti-Calvinistic, and that we ought to judge of her doctrine by her own catechism, and not by Ponet’s Calvinian catechism, which poor young King Edward was prevailed upon to recommend some time after the establishment of our Church. Mr. Toplady, in his Historic Proof, instead of considering the question, which is, Whether it is not fitter to gather the doctrine of our Church from her own anti-Calvinian catechism than from Ponet’s Calvinian catechism; Mr. Toplady, I say, in his answer to Mr. Sellon, fastens upon the phrase poor young King Edward, and works it to such a degree, that he raises from it clouds of shining dust and pillars of black smoke; filling, if I remember right, a whole section with the praises of King Edward, and with reflections upon Mr. Sellon. And, in his bright cloud of praise, and dark cloud of dispraise, the question is so entirely lost, that I doubt if one in a hundred of his readers has the least idea of it after reading two or three of the many pages which he has written on this head. By such means as these it is that he has made a ten or twelve shilling book, in which the Church of England is condemned to wear the badge of the Church of Geneva. And the Calvinists conclude Mr. Toplady has proved that she is bound to wear it; for they have paid dear for the proof.

That very gentleman, if fame is to be credited, has some thoughts of attacking the Checks. If he favour me with just remarks upon my mistakes (for I have probably made more than one; though I hope none of a capital nature) he shall have my sincere thanks: but if he involve the question in clouds of personal reflections and of idle digressions, he will only give me an opportunity of initiating the public more and more into the mysteries of Logica Genevensis. I therefore intreat him, if he think me worthy of his notice, to remember that the capital questions — the questions on which the fall of the Calvinian, or of the anti-Calvinian doctrines of grace turn, are not whether I am a fool and a knave; and whether I have made some mistakes in attacking Antinomianism; but whether those mistakes affect the truth of the anti-Solifidian and anti-Pharisaic Gospel which we defend: whether the two Gospel axioms are not equally true: whether our second Scale is not as Scriptural as the first: whether the doctrines of justice and obedience are not as important in their places as the doctrines of grace and mercy: whether the plan of reconciliation laid down in section iv, and the marriage of free grace and free will, described in section xi, are not truly evangelical: whether God can judge the world in righteousness and wisdom, if man be not a free, unnecessitated agent: whether the justification of obedient believers, by the WORKS OF FAITH, is not as Scriptural as the justification of sinners by FAITH itself: whether the eternal salvation of adults is not of remunerative justice as well as of free grace: whether that salvation does not secondarily depend on the evangelical, derived worthiness of obedient, persevering believers; as it primarily depends on the original and proper merits of our atoning and interceding Redeemer: whether man is in a state of probation; or, if you please, whether the Calvinian doctrines of finished salvation and finished damnation are true: whether there is not a day of initial salvation for all mankind, according to various dispensations of Divine grace: whether Christ did not taste death for every man, and purchase a day of initial redemption and salvation for all sinners, and a day of eternal redemption and salvation for all persevering believers: whether all the sins of real apostates, or foully fallen believers, shall so work for their good, that none of them shall ever be damned for any crime he shall commit: whether they shall all sing louder in heaven for their greatest falls on earth: whether our absolute, personal reprobation from eternal life is of God’s free wrath through the decreed, necessary sin of Adam; or of God’s just wrath through our own obstinate, avoidable perseverance in sin: whether our doctrines of non-necessitating grace and of just wrath do not exalt all the Divine perfections; and whether the Calvinian doctrines of necessitating grace and free wrath do not pour contempt upon all the attributes of God, his sovereignty not excepted.

These are the important questions which I have principally debated with the Hon. and Rev. Mr. Shirley, Richard Hill, Esq., the Rev. Mr. Hill, the Rev. Mr. Berridge, and the Rev. Mr. Toplady. Some less essential collateral questions I have touched upon, such as, Whether Judas was an absolutely graceless hypocrite, when our Lord raised him to apostolic honours: whether some of the most judicious Calvinists have not, at times, done justice to the doctrine of free will and co-operation, f29 &c. These, and the like questions, I call collateral, because they are only occasionally brought in; and because the walls which defend our doctrines of grace stand firm without them. We hope, therefore, that if Mr. Toplady, and the other divines who defend the ramparts of mystical Geneva, should ever attack the Checks, they will direct their main batteries against our towers, and not against some insignificant part of the scaffolding, which we could entirely take down, without endangering our Jerusalem in the least. Should they refuse to grant our reasonable request; should they take up the pen to perplex, and not to solve the question; to blacken our character, and not to illustrate the obscure parts of the truth; they must give us leave to look upon their controversial attempt as an evasive show of defence, contrived to keep a defenceless, tottering error upon its legs, before an injudicious, bigoted populace.

If you will do us and the public justice, come to close quarters, and put an end to the controversy by candidly receiving our Scripture Scales, or by plainly showing that they are false. Our doctrine entirely depends upon the two Gospel axioms, and their necessary consequences, which now hang out to public view in our Gospel balances. Nothing therefore can be more easy than to point out our error, if our system be erroneous. But if our Scales be just, if our doctrines of grace and justice — of free grace and free will be true; it is evident that the Solifidians and the moralists are both in the wrong, and that we are, upon the whole, in the right. I say upon the whole, because insignificant mistakes can no more affect the strength of our cause, than a cracked slate or a broken pane can affect the solidity of a palace, which is firmly built upon a rock.

Therefore if you are an admirer of Zelotes, and a Solifidian opposer of free will, of the law of liberty, and of the remunerative justification of a believer by the works of faith, raise no dust; candidly give up Antinomianism; break the two pillars on which it stands, — necessitating free grace and forcible free wrath; or prove, if you can, that our second Scale, which is directly contrary to your doctrines of grace, is irrational, and that we have forged or misquoted the passages which compose it. But if you are a follower of Honestus, and a neglecter of free grace and salvation by faith in Jesus Christ, be a candid and honest disputant. Come at once to the grand question; and terminate the controversy, either by receiving our first Scale, which is directly contrary to your scheme of doctrine; or by proving that this Scale is directly contrary to reason and Scripture, and that we have misquoted or mistaken most of the passages which enter into its composition. I say most, though I could say all; for if only two passages, properly taken in connection with the context, the avowed doctrine of a sacred writer, and the general drift of the Scriptures; — if only two such passages, I say, fairly and truly support each section of our Scripture Scales, they hang firmly, and can no more, upon the whole, be invalidated than the Scripture itself, which, as our Lord informs us, “cannot be broken,” John 10:35.

I take the Searcher of hearts, and my judicious, unprejudiced readers to witness, that through the whole of this controversy, far from concealing the most plausible objections, or avoiding the strongest arguments which are, or may be advanced against our reconciling doctrine, I have carefully searched them out, and endeavoured to encounter them as openly as David did Goliah. Had our opponents followed this method, I doubt not but the controversy would have ended long ago in the destruction of our prejudices, and in the rectifying of our mistakes. O, if we preferred the unspeakable pleasure of finding out the truth to the pitiful honour of pleasing a party, or of vindicating our own mistakes, how soon would the useful fan of Scriptural, logical, and brotherly controversy “purge the floor” of the Church! How soon would the light of truth and the flame of love “burn the chaff” of error and the thorns of prejudice “with fire unquenchable!” May the past triumphs of bigotry suffice! and instead of sacrificing any more to that detestable idol, may we all henceforth do whatever lies in us to hasten a general reconciliation, that we may all share together in the choicest blessings which God can bestow upon his peculiar people; — the Spirit of pure, evangelical truth, and of fervent, brotherly love.

MADELEY, March 30, 1775.